Bifocals in children with Down syndrome (BiDS) – visual acuity, accommodation and early literacy skills
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Reduced accommodation is seen in children and young adults with Down syndrome (DS), yet providing bifocals has not become a routine clinical management. This study investigates the impact of bifocals on visual function, visual perceptual and early literacy skills in a group of school children with DS. METHODS: In this longitudinal study, each child was followed for 5months with single-vision (SV) lenses after which bifocals were prescribed if required, based on their accommodative response. Visual acuity (VA), accommodation, perceptual and literacy skills were measured after adaptation to bifocals and 5months later. Educational progress and compliance with spectacle wear were assessed through school and parental reports. RESULTS: Fourteen children and young adults with DS participated in the study. Eighty-five percent required bifocals with additions ranging from +1.00D to +3.50D. The mean near logMAR VA improved with bifocals (p=0.007) compared to SV lenses. Repeated measures anova showed that there was more accurate focus (less accommodative lag) through the bifocals (p=0.002), but no change in the accommodation exerted through the distance portion compared to SV lenses (p=0.423). There was a main effect of time on sight words (p=0.013), Word Identification (p=0.047), Visual Closure (p=0.006) and Visual Form Constancy (p=0.001). CONCLUSION: Bifocals provide clearer near vision in DS children with reduced accommodation. This is shown by improved VA and decreased lag of accommodation. The results indicate that the improvement in VA results in improved scores in early literacy skills. Better compliance with bifocals over SV lenses was seen.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".